Gloranthan Genre conventions / tropes

[pete_darby]

Okay, splitting off from this thread, I'm trying to compile a pretty basic list of the convetions of Glorantha as a genre, with the focus on being as helpful as possible to newbies to get up and running "Gloranthish" games without either worrying about the weight of material, or being fobbed off with "your Glorantha will vary" without giving ideas of the parameters Gloranthan games work in.

Before starting, I'm indebted to two documents on Nick Brookes' site: Lozenge Building 101 by John Hughes, and  10 things I hate about Glorantha, with a sideways glance at Do ducks have teeth, also by John Hughes.

(btw, I know John's got his essays on Questlines, but I can't reach it atm...)

In fact, I'd do well just by quoting the whole of the first article... and after another 15 minutes reading, re-reading, trying to rewrite them and failing, I can't boil down Lozenge building 101 any further, Do Ducks... veers off, and has been at least partly gregged on the substantive issues, and the bits I wanted to use from 10 things have pretty much already been said in Lozenge Building.

Ah well, I suppose I shall just have to use the rest of my lunch break conversing with players.... but if anyone (especially Brand, as the genre thing was, IIRC, his insight) has any further comment on this, I really woudl love to see it.

[soru]

I'm going to focus on the things that would make me say 'this is not Glorantha', rather than incidental details of the setting or metaphysics.

#1 This is not D&D/generic fantasy/LoTR

No angry scottish dwarves, proud elvish archer-ninjas, pointless combats or infeasible amounts of hard currency.

#2 New stuff must have some connection to old stuff

A bunch of new mythology by itself usually reads like the backstory to a shootem-up game: no use to man nor beast. But take the same thing and drop some hints as to who the 'yelm' figure is, or make some of the names sound like variants of known gods or the events seem like the could be the view 'from the other side' of a well-known myth, and it's a lot easier to digest.

#3 The mundane world feels 'real' and 'mundane' to the people living in it.

There may be lots of deep contradictions and wierd stuff going on in the background, but these would rarely be visible to anyone actually in the world. If you (in character) researched historical records, there might be the same kind of historical ambiguities and errors you would find researching real-world history, but you wouldn't expect to find blatant irreconcilable differences between trustworthy accounts.

If you are a grizzled military commander, you can predict how magic can be expected to affect a battle - you might be wrong, but you will be surprised to be proved wrong.

Of course, these don't apply on the 'other side' - the existence of the other side is what makes emphasising the grittyness of mundane Glorantha important.

soru

[pete_darby]

Hmmm... I hate to sound negative, but you could say those things about most fantasy worlds, pace games derived from D&D... and even then, some things would apply to D&D as well.

To me, the metaphysics are what make it different...

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Pete,

Yeah, after reading soru's post (no offense soru), it seems to me this threads gonna need a bit more focus if it's gonna work.  YGMV allows a lot of leeway -- perhaps even for core assumptions.  

You might want to make: "Pete's Glorantha Thread" and have people add and test ideas to what *your* version of Glorantha will be.  But I'm not sure you can bring in the whole gang and get them to agree on even the basic elements of the place.  

Christopher

[pete_darby]

Yeah, but that's pretty much the circle I'm trying to square here... YGWV, but what can't V before it ain't G?

Or am I just drawing lines in the sand here?

[soru]

Hmmm... I hate to sound negative, but you could say those things about most fantasy worlds, pace games derived from D&D... and even then, some things would apply to D&D as well.

To me, the metaphysics are what make it different...

And most things from most fantasy worlds would fit into Glorantha perfectly well, if they were there.

The metaphysics 'behind' Glorantha has changed about 5 or 6 times, and will change again in the future next time Greg has a better idea. None of this actually changes anything in game, and certainly 'wrong metaphysics' would never cause something to not be in-genre.

soru

[Brand_Robins]

Well Chris, and I hate to say this, but the truth is if we can't even agree on some basic Gloranthan genre tropes we're pretty much fucked as far as getting newbies into the setting goes. Having arguments over the details of the setting arcana is one thing, not having any agreement about what makes the setting feel like the setting is another.

However, for genre theory not everyone has to agree about every point. All that has to happen is that most people agree that most points are acceptable as launching off points. (Genre is, after all, defined by repetition and difference – and if everyone did everything exactly the same on every point it would be a pastiche, not a genre.) So if we can get 5 to 10 basic ideas that most people agree are generally Gloranthan, then we can start to build off of that.

Here is a list of things I've used when I've done material for Glorantha (not always consciously at the time) to make it feel Glorantha even when I wasn't real clear on the canon setting:

1. Myth Defines: This can be either the Sim "myth as background" or the Nar "myth as premise" – but in either case it is Mythology, not history or politics or even geography, that defines the world on the deepest level.

2. Community is Central: This ties in with mythology, as myths are communal events, but also goes farther. Everyone is from somewhere, and the place you are from determines a lot about you. This includes many of the 'monsters' of HeroQuest – who have communities and myths of their own that make them understandable and "human" but whom still are inherently opposed to humanity. This is the "Us vs. Them."

3. Values are in Conflict: This is the part where you have to decide who "Us" and "Them" is, what that means, and what you're willing to do about it. Big decisions in Glorantha are always about the clash between values and passions, either on the individual or global level. Old ways should conflict with new ways, their ways with our ways, and so on. Wars in Glorantha aren't just about controlling land – they're about belief and value systems.

4.  Power Has a Price: It is possible for a human in Glorantha to become a god, or at least a demi-god if they gain their power from myths and communities. However, this power always has a price – both to you and to the world. From the Red Moon losing her humanity and changing the whole world in ways that create chaos, to Herrek becoming renegade and outcast, there are always ways to gain power, but never a way to do it without a price.

5. Ambiguous References: HeroQuest talks about this in reference to character generation, but I think it works for the world as a whole and for building games in the world. What is the Knight of Ghosts and Shadows, the Sacred Thread, the City of the Elephant, or Little Speaker of the Bush Voice? They're ambiguous references, things that give a mythic feel without being tied to a canon point (and so this could be a corollary to #1). When they come up in the game they can be filled in (by GM or player, depending on narrative rights in your game), left dark, or expanded upon as needed. I honestly think a lot of sticky points in Gloranthan canon have become issues because they were started/intended as ambiguous references that people out of game tried to nail down into specific setting details.

6. Greg can screw it, so can you: Anyone trying to stick to canon to closely will eventually get Gregged. So either be ready to change your canon, keep it subjective, or stick to themes rather than details or metaphysics.

[pete_darby]

Mr Robins, my hat is off to you: that looks like a fantastic list to me.

Soru: do you see what I was trying to get at now? The word "tropes" in the title has thrown the discussion a bit, I think: I was hoping to move on to them later, but they're specifically NOT what I'm talking about at the moment. I'm trying to get down to "what makes a gloranthan story gloranthan, or at the very least gloranthish." If the answer is "nothing", well, why the hell do folks like myself keep banging on about it?

Have another look at Lozenge Building 101, referenced above, and at Brand's list. They're pretty much what I was talking about.

To put it another way: if we can take, say, Keep on the Borderlands, rename the kobolds trollkin, stick a lunar flag on the keep and make one of the NPC's a duck, would that make it Gloranthan? Sure, the tropes are all lined up, but without what Brand or John Hughes' are talking about, it doesn't feel like Glorantha, however varied.

Perhaps more importantly, by writing a scenario, or campaign background, that pays attention to these, it can feel gloranthan even without any of the tropes: Well of Souls is a great example, as it barely references Glorantha, and can very easily be adapted for other world, but it's very "Gloranthish," it emphasizes myth, community and personal responsibility.

Well, I'm both happy with the answers I found or got, and that I've adequately addressed what I wanted and why I'm happy now: I know where to point when confronted with "What can I do?" "YGWV!" "Yeah thanks, now how about a constructive answer?" I have a constructive answer or two, and thank you all.

[Brand_Robins]

The word "tropes" in the title has thrown the discussion a bit, I think:

I think part of the problem is also in how I (a student of rhetoric and genre theory) uses the word compared to how others use them (a more literary sense, generally). Part of it is that the term is getting used pretty loosely in general in this conversation. So, to try to keep us from whacking each other with bats, I thought I might explain my use of terminology a bit more clearly.

A "genre trope" is a bit of a genre that can be used to characterize the genre. In most genre theory it includes the following items:
[list=1]
[*]Narrative: The typical plots and structures, predictable situations, sequences, obstacles, conflicts, and resolutions.
[*]Characterization: The types of characters, roles, personality qualities, motivations, and behaviors expected.
[*]Themes, topics, subjects: The values, thematics, feeling, and tone of the genre. Also includes patterns which establish meaning and/or social codes.
[*]Setting: Where it takes place.
[*]Iconography/Style: Stylistic conventions, typical looks, methods of presentation, etc.
[/list:o]
I was focusing on number 3 most heavily, with some reference to numbers 1 and 2, because they seemed to be the most helpful to me (which is a biased position, as I have a loosely nar style). I was trying to avoid 4 and 5 because they are particularly problematic in this discussion: 4 because of the vast amounts of Glorantha trivia and 5 because in an RPG the iconography (other than the art in the books) tends to be so very group focused that discussions on it are difficult to centralize or standardize.

Now if someone wants to try to distill the essence of the Gloranthan setting to a list, be my guest. I lack the qualifications to do so, and from the comments others are making I don't think we'll get a list everyone can agree on. (Example: Ducks.) The Iconography is mostly established by art or in play, and is problematic when talking about RPGs anyway. So if we can talk about the types of stories, characters, and themes that make Glorantha Glorantha we may be able to get to the center of the parts of the matter that are resolvable through genre theory.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Brand,

That was a great list.

I think that such a list not only helps people unfamiliar with the game get into the, but just as importantly helps folks decide whether or not they want to play in Glorantha at all.  After all, not everyone wants to play in what Glorantha values.

Now: a question.

This might be where YGMV steps in.  Soru suggests that in Glorantha, the magic stuff is essentially mundane to the characers living in this mythical world.  I felt my brain turn within my skull when I read these words, not because soru's nescesarily wrong, but because to my reading of Glorantha it's completely wrong.  

I don't think anyone living in the world of the Greek myths would think, upon seeing a man turned into a tree, "Well, there it goes again."  The stories are dependent on wonder, horror and surprise.  Same goes for fairy tales, the Arabian Nights and so on.

More over, I think this issue speaks to the ambiguity of mythology -- what the gods "represent" what powers they have, don't have, what peculiar feats or incident occur in the journey of Odysseus that makes everyone sit around him and listen night on end to his exploits -- they are extraordinary and surprising.

Now, this might be just a personal preference, or it might matter.  It seems to me, thought that one of the things that sets Glorantha's "mythic nature" apart from other RPG fantasy games is the requirement that magic *not* feel mundane, that it doesn't feel as predictable as sending in a tank division or using magic simply as a different kind of technology.

So, does something like how magic works and feels like this go on the list?  Am I missing the boat?  Or is this a YGMV matter?

(See, I think this issue ties directly to numbers 1. and 5. on your list (1. Myth Defines & 5. Ambiguous References), but that just might be me.

Thanks,

Christopher

[Brand_Robins]

Soru suggests that in Glorantha, the magic stuff is essentially mundane to the characers living in this mythical world.  I felt my brain turn within my skull when I read these words, not because soru's nescesarily wrong, but because to myreading of Glorantha is completely wrong.

Ug. That's a brutal question, right there. In a normal genre theory situation I'd have to analyze it by stepping back and watching/reading about 1000 books/movies in the genre. I'd go through a process of determining if it was or was not a feature of the genre, and by analyzing how/where it shows up and what it means when it does, which of the genre areas it roughly belongs to. The problem with Glorantha RPG is that I can't watch that many RPG campaigns, and I'm not already an expert in the field. This is the long way of saying that everything that follows is educated guesswork, and not a real genre-theory study.

I would suspect that the nature of magic as either a mundane part of the world or not is a combination of Setting and Iconography/Style. (So numbers 4 & 5 on my earlier list.)

It's part of setting as we have a world in which "Common Magic" is just that – common. Most housewives have a "cook good food" talent, and many hunters would have a "kill deer painlessly" charm. However, that does not inherently mean that all magic is common or that people in the setting would see a man turned into a tree and think "there it goes again." It simply means that common people have common magics that are small things directly related to their lives and communities. That's the setting part.

The Iconography/Style part comes in when you decide what that means in terms of how magic looks/works. Does a woman having "cook good food" as a charm that she neither made nor fully understands mean that she would not be shocked and amazed by a flying carpet? Does it mean that every single person all over the world has the inherent ability to become a Herek or JarEel? The answers to that could go either way without violating the setting issue defined above, and so it is more a matter of style. (And yes, style can influence and be influenced by theme, so my early refusal to acknowledge it does lead to a weakness in the theory, but it's not one I can gap-close right at the moment.)

Because the issue is one of Iconography/Style as well as setting, it can get a bit tricksom in deciding how it fits the genre. I would suggest, in general, that the setting be seen as part of the genre – common people having common magic seems to be a fairly mainline Gloranthan trope as of the HeroQuest version of the world. The Iconography/Style part of it, however, is something that must be determined by the group running the game. While the Setting and Theme can suggest certain "more standard" readings, in the end the Style is one area in which YGWV still holds full sway. So long as people have a good understanding of 1, 2, 3, and some help getting details of 4, I think they should be able to make up their own minds on 5 without much problem.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hey,

Thanks for the terrific and thoughtful reply.

I actually cross-posted when you were posting your list of "genre tropes," and after reading them, realized it would come down to actually committing to Style -- and, as you suggest, that's up to the players.  

And, as you suggest, this would influence theme strongly.  For me, it's all about the otherworldliness of it.  Even the the woman using magic for cooking better damn well respect that her magic is from a source outside of herself -- but that would be a "house style" and tie directly into what the gruop's agenda is all about.  (See my Deep End Glorantha post over on the "HQ Prep for Play" thread to see how much making magic magical would matter to me.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9501&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15 )

Christopher

[soru]

I don't think anyone living in the world of the Greek myths would think, upon seeing a man turned into a tree, "Well, there it goes again."  

I don't think any Gloranthan would dispute the possibility of something unknown being able to turn a man into a tree (except maybe a God Learner: 'breaking Agilrad's principle of runic form invariance would take several megathaums, and the primitive local temples can't possibly manage that kind of power storage'*), so they might be surprised, but not shocked.

Probably, at least some Greeks would think differently, as they were the original prototype western rationalists. The greek myths were tales of time long past, even when they were first told. Gloranthan myths can be tales of what your Uncle Snorri did 5 years ago, or what you will do tomorrow.

A lot of Gloranthan fiction and gameplay, is more 'magic realism' than myth: it simply treats magic as just something you can do. It can be emotionally involving, terrifying, alluring, and so on, but not in a way uniquely different from anything else in life.

The stories are dependent on wonder, horror and surprise.  Same goes for fairy tales, the Arabian Nights and so on.

IMHO, that gets to the heart of the matter. Glorantha is not a fairy tale world, it is a place where fairy tales are told. Only when you cross to the 'other side' does narrative logic take over.

The contrast between the mundane world and the world of myth can be a rich source of game themes. Yes, you did what the wizard said and claimed the sword from the spirit of the land, but will that make your barons do what you tell them?

soru

* I think another minor genre rule is 'whenever a God Learner states something with absolute confidence, he will turn out to be disastrously and messily wrong'

[Brand_Robins]

* I think another minor genre rule is 'whenever a God Learner states something with absolute confidence, he will turn out to be disastrously and messily wrong'

I was going to post this to a different thread, but then I thought it might work as an example of working from "genre bones" to "setting specifics" and so figured I'd leave it here.

I'm guessing that the God Learners are "price of power folks" and fit into the whole Gloranthan concept of natural order/power/price of both. However I have very little specific knowledge about them. They're one of the bits of Gloranthan lore that has mostly escaped my attention and evaded my quests for knowledge.

So lets say I'm going to be running a campaign in which the PCs have gotten a ship and are sailing to a mostly-forgotten island that used to be inhabited by God Learners in order to try to colonize the land. They're doing this because they have decided they can't live in their current homes anymore, the Lunars are pressing them to hard, so they're going to another land to live free and (maybe) build up enough strength to someday bring the battle back to the Lunars. When they get to the island they start finding traces of God Learning and possibly even a still living God Learner. They are tempted by the power potential, knowing that what they are doing is death, but hoping that if they can use just a little of it they can keep themselves safe and strong, and hurt the Lunars who drove them from their home.

What would I need to know, canonaically, about the God Learners to run this? Are there any problems with the situation as I've set it up? Any specific references you think might be helpful towards me and my players playing with the fire and unavoidable doom of God Learners?

[RaconteurX]

Magic is commonplace in Glorantha, not mundane. The innate difficulty of turning a man into a tree means that it is unlikely that any Gloranthan would consider it commonplace. Likewise invisibility, mind control and all the other varieties of "difficult magic" as defined in the rules. Also, what constitutes commonplace magical activity will vary considerably based on culture, and magic which is not commonplace is typically considered odd, dangerous, both, or worse.